Supreme Court case information
Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing.
Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.
All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.
Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.
17 August 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
Case name
Peter Charles York and Alpine Glacier Motel Limited v Westland District Council
Case number
SC 37/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950 – The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the action was time-barred under the Limitation Act.[2014] NZCA 59 CA 774/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Yoon Lee v District Court at Auckland. Zhi Hong Gao and Lin Ge, John Carter, Timothy Upton Slack and Brent O’Callahan
Case number
SC 56/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by making plain errors in the findings of fact – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to recognise that there was a loss of chance to take steps to recover the Gao’s deposits – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court upheld the finding of negligence but reduced the damages – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to make the finding that the District Court Judge went beyond the court’s jurisdiction in hearing the claim because the amount claimed exceeded the statutory limit – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking that the High Court had set aside the substantive judgment between the appellant and the 2nd respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the error of law made by the lower courts on the issue of assignment and consequential unconscionable conduct by the 3rd respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding full indemnity costs against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking relevant authorities.[2014] NZCA 169 CA 362/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the second and third respondents costs on an indemnity basis, plus reasonable disbursements.
24 September 2014
The applicant must pay the second and third respondents costs on an indemnity basis, plus reasonable disbursements.
24 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Douglas and Christine Banks v Grey District Council
Case number
SC 60/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – civil procedure – whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing that both appeals be heard together and in one day – whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing that the appeals be conducted using the case on appeal filed by the respondent – whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing that questions of costs be determined as part of the appeals. CA 460/2013; CA 667/2013 Stevens J
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
5 August 2014
5 August 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
The Wanaka Gym Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 84/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted. [2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
23 December 2014
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Fiona Caroline Graham v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 85/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted.[2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
23 December 2014
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
NR v District Court at Auckland and MR
Case number
SC 120/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Deputy Registrar’s decision not to provide the applicant with information he requested.[2014] NZCA 514
Result
The application to file further submissions is declined.
The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014
_____________
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014
_____________
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
Court of Appeal decision
Supreme court decision
N v M [2014] NZSC 189 [19 December 2014] (PDF, 95 KB)
Supreme court decision
N v M [2015] NZSC 15 [27 February 2015] (PDF, 164 KB)
Case name
Planet Kids Limited v Auckland Council
Case number
SC 5/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – frustration of purpose – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in finding that the settlement agreement between the parties was frustrated by the termination of the lease held by the appellant under a clause of the deed of lease.[2012] NZCA 562 CA 58/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 June 2013 (PDF, 379 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 147 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
John Anthony Osborne and Helen Osborne v The Auckland Council and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
Case number
SC 9/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, s 14(a) – Interpretation of “built” – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a dwellinghouse is “built” at the time it passes its final building inspection. [2012] NZCA 609 CA 650/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent. They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________
Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.
29 September 2014
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent. They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________
Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.
29 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2013 SC 9 2013 (PDF, 516 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 67 (PDF, 92 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
OSBORNE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL SC 9/2013 [1 May 2013] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Pauline Janice Harrison and Angela Janice Harrison v Auckland District Health Board and others
Case number
SC 23/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 – Medical malpractice – Whether the Associate Judge had jurisdiction to strike out the claim or acted ultra vires in doing so – Whether the Associate Judge was correct to hold that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the defendants – Whether the Associate Judge was correct to hold that the statement of claim was vexatious and an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.CA 723/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 October 2013.
15 October 2013.
Recall judgment
Case name
Te Rünanga-ä-iwi-o Ngäti Kahu v Far North District Council, Carrington Farms Limited, Carrington Estate Limited, Carrington Resort Limited.
Case number
SC 66/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 91, 94C, 104 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 94C – Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Westfield (New Zealand) v North Shore City Council [2005] NZSC 17, [2005] 2 NZLR 597 – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied its decision in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estates Ltd [2006] NZRMA 424 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the settlement agreement. [2013] NZCA 221 CA 705/2011; CA 706/2011; CA 54/2012; CA 56/2012.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) In relation to the land use consent application:
(i) Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;
(ii) Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and
(iii) What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.
(b) In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:
(i) The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or
(ii) The permitted baseline under s 104(2).
(c) Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.
2 December 2013
_____________________________________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 January 2015.
(a) In relation to the land use consent application:
(i) Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;
(ii) Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and
(iii) What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.
(b) In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:
(i) The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or
(ii) The permitted baseline under s 104(2).
(c) Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.
2 December 2013
_____________________________________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 January 2015.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Page 13 of 20